Abstract

The requirement that legal reasoning be universalizable is so unquestioned as a legal doctrine that it is practically axiomatic. Recently, two Philippine Supreme Court cases have been decided in a manner that apparently dispenses with this requirement. I discuss these two cases in the light of the requirement. I conclude that the requirement, rather than being diminished by the two cases, has actually maintained its axiomatic status on the basis that the reasoning in the two cases is deficient: the first either for inequality in treatment or for lack of clear guidance, and the second for the failure to appear impartial.